Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:18:31 -0800 | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] hwmon: (w83627ehf) Add GPIO port 3 functionality |
| |
Hi folks,
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 04:42:39AM -0500, Alejandro del Rio wrote: > Hi Rodolfo, > > On 15-Jan-12 4:53 AM, Rodolfo Giometti wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 04:15:08PM -0600, Alejandro wrote: > >> > >> The patch looks great, and it is definitely more maintainable. I'll > >> create a patch for the w83627ehf driver and send it as soon as > >> possible. Should I make the patch for the w83627hf or wait for > >> Rodolfo??? > > > > I already sent a new version of my patches... here you can find a copy > > of my message: > > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/lm-sensors/msg33656.html > > > > Please, ask to me whatever you need since I'd like very much these > > patches will be added to the kernel main tree! :) > > > > Ciao, > > > > Rodolfo > > The patch as it is posted on "lm-sensors/msg33656.html" mailing list > does not apply to the latest tree. After making some changes it applies > cleanly to 3.2 tree. The issues were: > > -The gpio naming convention is now "gpio-[name of the driver]" instead > of "[name of driver]_gpio" > -Line changes in the Kconfig > -Some email addresses converted to @xxxxxxx (by the lm-sensors mailing > list I guess) > > Please look at the attachments for the new patches (I take no credit for > the changes as it was a trivial clean-up), if you like the changes I > would recommend starting a new thread on this list to get reviews. > > Note: I couldn't test the driver because my platform has not an HF chip > but the patch looks good so far =) > > BR! > > Alex
> From 932beeb80d022c5bab861ea4d8d78cd82cae0bba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Alejandro del Rio <scasbyte@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:32:21 -0800 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [temporal change] > > [temporal change] > > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro del Rio <scasbyte@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/hwmon/w83627hf.c | 331 ++++++++++++---------------------------------- > 1 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 245 deletions(-) > [ ... ]
> static int __devinit w83627hf_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > { > struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; > - struct w83627hf_sio_data *sio_data = dev->platform_data; > + struct w83627hf_sio_data *sio_data = dev->parent->platform_data; > struct w83627hf_data *data; > - struct resource *res; > int err, i; > > - static const char *names[] = { > - "w83627hf", > - "w83627thf", > - "w83697hf", > - "w83637hf", > - "w83687thf", > + struct resource res = { > + .start = /* address + */ WINB_REGION_OFFSET, > + .end = /* address + */ WINB_REGION_OFFSET + > + WINB_REGION_SIZE - 1, > + .name = DRVNAME "_hwmon", > + .flags = IORESOURCE_IO, > }; > > - res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IO, 0); > - if (!request_region(res->start, WINB_REGION_SIZE, DRVNAME)) { > + err = w83627hf_enable_hwmon(sio_data); > + if (err < 0) > + return err; > + > + /* Before doing our job we should fixup ioport range */ > + res.start += err; > + res.end += err; > + This doesn't look right. The mfd driver should pass resource information to its child devices via mfd_add_device(), which adds it to the child device platform data. Can you check how other mfd devices handle this ?
Guenter
| |